5 ms·

Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. No, no, no. You are confused about what an axiom is; an axiom is truth that cannot be proven, but w

Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. No, no, no. You are confused about what an axiom is; an axiom is truth that cannot be proven, but which is taken to be self-evident. Yes, you are correct that axioms in math cannot be proven; that is, by definition, what makes them axiomatic. An example is the identity axiom: x = x. This is obvious as to why we think this is true. This axiom is useful in proving more complex theorems. That's why mathematicians define such seemingly-obvious statements with axioms. What would a religious "axiom" be? I take it that you believe the existence of a creator to be an "axiom" for a given religious set. This is a false analogy. How is the existence of a creator self-evident? The burden of proof need not be on the doubters. If I make absurd claims (which conveniently are unverifiable), then they damn well better be self-evident.

ars 14y ago
Something created existence (not just the matter of the universe - the concept of there being "something"). You can argue about the nature of this thing (is it sentient, does it desire interaction), but that something created existence is indeed self evident.
- joejohnson 14y ago
  Something created existence... No. That is absolutely not self-evident. In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. What evidence do we have for this theory? Why assume it was something that created existence? Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Perhaps these laws will very neatly explain many characteristic of our universe. There are infinite other possible explanations. The religious idea that a creator was cause of our existence is unsupported by anything other than religious texts, and this idea is clearly not the sole possible explanation for the origins of the universe. So in short, no, the existence of a creator is not self-evident. If you use religion to answers such questions which are unanswered with our current knowledge of the universe, then you are being irrational, not analytical. Before we understood that our planet rotates around the sun, there were numerous supernatural explanations. At the time, it was thought to be unknowable. But a few hundred years later, we realize that: 1) the answer to this question is knowable, and 2) the answer now seems trivial, almost obvious. Modern theists, like modern rationalists, are likely to accept that ancient religious doctrine is silly and false. Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! That's ridiculous. Most modern theists reject these outdated theological ideas. They have reduced their belief structure to one god; atheists just go one further. It's the obvious next step in our civilizations movement out of antiquity and towards enlightenment. The modern religious person either ignores science and all of the evidence, or sits at the edge of our current universal knowledge and posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural. Fortunately, history will prove the religious wrong. Our current epistemological and ontological questions are no exception.
  - ars 14y ago
    > In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. Obviously. I suspect you don't know that much about physics, but that's kind of implied: You can't create the laws of physics from within the laws of physics. > What evidence do we have for this theory? Conservation of energy, entropy. It's very well accepted that whatever created our current laws came from outside the laws. There are some scientific explanations for the existence of matter, but none for the existence of the laws. The closest anyone comes is the idea that all possible laws exist (multiverse) - but of course that doesn't answer the question of where the framework the existence of any laws at all comes. > Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question of where those laws came from. All you did is move up a step, but you answered nothing. > there were numerous supernatural explanations Not really. The explanations were actually scientific - look up Aristotelian physics. They may have been wrong, but they were entirely secular. > Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! No one actually believed that. It was part of legends and stories told for entertainment. > posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural There is only one limitation that needs the supernatural: The existence of nature. Lets say our world is a simulation on a computer. Does that count as a natural or supernatural explanation to you?

ars 14y ago

Something created existence (not just the matter of the universe - the concept of there being "something"). You can argue about the nature of this thing (is it sentient, does it desire interaction), but that something created existence is indeed self evident.

joejohnson 14y ago
Something created existence... No. That is absolutely not self-evident. In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. What evidence do we have for this theory? Why assume it was something that created existence? Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Perhaps these laws will very neatly explain many characteristic of our universe. There are infinite other possible explanations. The religious idea that a creator was cause of our existence is unsupported by anything other than religious texts, and this idea is clearly not the sole possible explanation for the origins of the universe. So in short, no, the existence of a creator is not self-evident. If you use religion to answers such questions which are unanswered with our current knowledge of the universe, then you are being irrational, not analytical. Before we understood that our planet rotates around the sun, there were numerous supernatural explanations. At the time, it was thought to be unknowable. But a few hundred years later, we realize that: 1) the answer to this question is knowable, and 2) the answer now seems trivial, almost obvious. Modern theists, like modern rationalists, are likely to accept that ancient religious doctrine is silly and false. Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! That's ridiculous. Most modern theists reject these outdated theological ideas. They have reduced their belief structure to one god; atheists just go one further. It's the obvious next step in our civilizations movement out of antiquity and towards enlightenment. The modern religious person either ignores science and all of the evidence, or sits at the edge of our current universal knowledge and posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural. Fortunately, history will prove the religious wrong. Our current epistemological and ontological questions are no exception.
- ars 14y ago
  > In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. Obviously. I suspect you don't know that much about physics, but that's kind of implied: You can't create the laws of physics from within the laws of physics. > What evidence do we have for this theory? Conservation of energy, entropy. It's very well accepted that whatever created our current laws came from outside the laws. There are some scientific explanations for the existence of matter, but none for the existence of the laws. The closest anyone comes is the idea that all possible laws exist (multiverse) - but of course that doesn't answer the question of where the framework the existence of any laws at all comes. > Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question of where those laws came from. All you did is move up a step, but you answered nothing. > there were numerous supernatural explanations Not really. The explanations were actually scientific - look up Aristotelian physics. They may have been wrong, but they were entirely secular. > Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! No one actually believed that. It was part of legends and stories told for entertainment. > posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural There is only one limitation that needs the supernatural: The existence of nature. Lets say our world is a simulation on a computer. Does that count as a natural or supernatural explanation to you?